Here, There, and Everywhere

Without access to the original data it is hard to make any judgement on causation, but there is enough data to raise suspicion and to make exercising the precautionary principle a reasonable response.

The problem however, needs to be seen in the wider context of global food supplies. Restricting the use of pesticides without adequate strategies to maintain yields would only benefit those wealthy enough to be able to afford the increased food prices that would flow from this. Organic foods are luxury items!

World hunger has increased sharply over recent years so any decrease in supply has the potential to increase hunger and malnutrition in developing countries. The best of all possible worlds continues to elude us!

Maybe I am confused, but why would you suggest that it would be better to make organic food more accessible to everyone rather than pursue whether something like ADHD is caused by a certain class of chemicals?

I am much more familiar with autism than ADHD, but if a similar relationship were found to autism, I would be completely behind the idea of finding out whether the relationship was real.

If the relationship is replicated in future research and this class of pesticides is proven to have a casual relationship to ADHD, you could potentially prevent a large number of cases simply by outlawing use of the chemical in question. That seems like a very worthwhile goal to me.

I am suggesting that there is a need for more methodologically sound studies regarding the effect of pesticides on the entire human body. Making organic food more accessible to everyone is an additional suggestion.

I don't think the methodologically of the study was that bad. Sure, they could have (as you suggested) repeated urine tests over a longer time frame to eliminate any errors with taking a single measurement and this one study does not establish any sort of causal relationship.

But, the data in the study was from a wide geographic area and incorporated a significant number of children. Given these two factors, I don't think it is likely that the relation was just a fluke. Especially considering the size of the effect involved (up to OR of about 2). Nor do I think that individual diet could account for the difference - not with this many children involved and the authors adjusting for so many factors.

Fruits and vegetables are not the only source of pesticide exposure for children. Another significant source of exposure is from pets treated with flea and tick products. In fact, EPA residential risk assessments have shown that "spot-on" type flea and tick products are one of the most dangerous pesticide exposure scenarios for toddlers. These spot-on products contain a large percentage of pesticide (typically 45% to 85%), and are applied monthly to the back of the animal.

Organophosphates were removed from pet pesticide products a decade ago, and were largely replaced by pyrethroids -- a class of pesticide that also disrupts the nervous system of insects, animals, and humans. Pyrethroids are now suspected of being a possible cause of developmental disorders, Parkinson's, and Alzheimer's disease.

The EPA has recently determined that developmental neurotoxicity studies for pyrethroids "do not provide sufficient information related to the susceptibility of infants and children."

There's no need for 'better studies' regarding the effects of these chemicals on people when the products - organophosphate and pyrethroid pesticides - are designed to damage brain/nerve cells. Why are we surprised when they act as intended? Invented for agricultural use, ignorant consumers invite applicators into their homes, offices, schools and hospitals resulting in those environments being inundated with these sprays as if we were crops.

Indoor environments lack sunlight, needed for the degradation of these chemicals and permeable household furnishings readily absorb them. Multiple chemicals are used in alternation to prevent insects from developing resistance which means multiple poisons are acting upon each person all day long. It may look like flu or the beginning of dementia; it can affect blood sugar and causes inflammation which is the root of many disease processes.

Physicians don't recognize symptoms because patients don't know about their exposures. We are told they are “ubiquitous” which means constant exposure with no opportunity for people to properly excrete old contaminants before inhaling/ingesting new ones. "Ubiquitous" should not mean "They're everywhere so resign yourselves to being harmed.”. The technology exists to safely control the vast majority of indoor pest problems from bed bugs to ants to termites. Interview members of the important profession of pest control to ensure their expertise in the less toxic practices available today and the term 'ubiquitous' will no longer apply.

If protecting children is truly important to you, demand passage of the SEPA legislation which promises greater scrutiny in how pesticides are chosen and also informs parents and teachers in advance of applications for hazardous chemicals. Currently, we don't have the right to know when this is being done in most states. I myself was disabled by pesticides in a school I supervised due to lack of notice despite my requests to be informed. You can also test your home or office for residues present in the air or baseboard surfaces to find out if ongoing exposures to, say, chlordane, might be affecting your functioning. Banned in 1988, chlordane continues to pollute millions of buildings in this country according to government sources (ATSDR).

I would like to see a study of how many kids who have ADD and ADHD were raised without ever getting a spanking.